Huston v. People

Citations

• 121 Ill. 497
• 13 N.E. 538
• 1887 Ill. LEXIS 947

Syllabus

<p>1. Bare—failure to malte resistance, through intimidation and threats. On a prosecution for rape, the defence asked the court to instruct the jury that unless they found, from the evidence, that the prosecutrix, at the time of the alleged assault, used all the force and resistance in her power to prevent the accomplishment of the act, they should find the defendant not guilty, or ■at least should take such fact into consideration in passing upon the question of his guilt. The instruction was objectionable, and was properly refused, because it did not negative the hypothesis that the failure of the prosecutrix to make the requisite resistance was caused by the threats and intimidation ■of the accused, there being evidence tending to prove such hypothesis.</p> <p>2. New trial—on the evidence. Where the evidence on the trial of one for a rape is conflicting, the accused admitting the carnal intercourse, but denying it was against the will of the prosecutrix, and each is somewhat corroborated, and the trial court sustains a conviction by refusing a new trial, •this court will not reverse the judgment of conviction.</p> <p>3. Instructions—repeating. This court will not reverse a judgment ■of conviction in a criminal case for the refusal to give instructions on the part of the defendant that might properly have been given, where the principles announced in them are sufficiently covered by other instructions given for him.</p>